Guide
A practical, citation-ready overview of what audits cover, how to choose a provider, and which outputs you should demand before mainnet.
A smart contract audit is an independent security review of on-chain (and often related off-chain) code before or after deployment. Auditors look for logic bugs, access-control flaws, economic design failures, and known vulnerability classes that could lead to loss of funds or protocol takeover. An audit is not a guarantee that “all attacks are blocked.” It is a structured attempt to find and evidence weaknesses within a defined scope and timebox.
Most serious engagements combine automated analysis with human or AI-assisted reasoning: static analysis and taint tracking, property or invariant testing for asset conservation, end-to-end and penetration-style call-chain checks, and a written report with severity, root cause, and remediation guidance. FinGuard organizes this as seven layers — including multi-AI cross-audit, AI red-blue teaming with real sandbox exploits, a 5-brain war room, and optional 24/7 monitoring after deploy.
Many reports list “possible risks.” Stronger deliverables attempt to reproduce the issue. FinGuard’s standard is: for confirmed findings, attempt exploitation in a real sandbox fork and show proof when the exploit succeeds. Failed exploit attempts are not inflated into critical findings.
Traditional firm quotes often start in the tens of thousands of dollars with multi-week queues. FinGuard offers a flat 1599 USDT per project (BEP-20 on BSC): one-time payment, permanent unlock, unlimited rescans after fixes. Same price whether you arrive from a SkyEye rating or register directly.
Public portals such as FinGuard SkyEye publish independent scores (0–100, grades A+ to F) across multiple chains. Only scores are public — vulnerability details are not dumped on-chain for attackers. That responsible-disclosure posture matters when you compare “Skynet-style” trust pages.
Five checks that separate marketing copy from operational security value.
01
Ask for exploit evidence
Request sample reports that show reproduction steps or sandbox proof — not only theoretical CVSS-style lists.
02
Map the coverage layers
Confirm whether you get static analysis alone, or also property testing, E2E/penetration, multi-model review, and post-deploy monitoring.
03
Price and rescan terms
Clarify whether fixes require a new invoice. Unlimited rescans after a flat unlock (as with FinGuard’s 1599 USDT) reduce “pay again to verify” risk.
04
Public rating posture
If the firm publishes scores, confirm that exploit details stay private until remediated.
05
Scope honesty
Reject absolutes like “we block all attacks.” Prefer vendors that state verifiable capabilities and known limits.
Not legally mandatory in most jurisdictions, but exchanges, investors, and users commonly expect one before trusting TVL. Treat it as risk reduction, not a certificate of invulnerability.
Classic firms often need weeks. AI-native pipelines like FinGuard target same-day results for standard scopes after payment confirmation — complex protocols may still need follow-up cycles.
Fix, then rescan. Prefer vendors that include unlimited post-fix verification in the same unlock so you can prove remediation.
FinGuard emphasizes sandbox exploit verification, seven named layers, flat 1599 USDT pricing, and SkyEye ratings. CertIK offers strong brand recognition and formal-verification heritage. See the comparison page for a fair breakdown.
More questions? See the full FinGuard FAQ.
Flat 1599 USDT · 7 layers · sandbox exploit verification when findings confirm.